Talk:Lord Voldemort/Archive 1

Untitled
should not omit any major facets of the topic - very little primary source stuff i.e. rowlings words, about the char, why she made the decisions about this character she did, what was her purpose with this char, also no significance outside potter universe is stated, why is it important to the world etc

To be "theft of a dead body" wouldn't it have to be "vol d'un mort"? Basil Fawlty
 * My French is rusty, but if you're right, wouldn't that make "vol de mort" "theft of death"? -- Jim Regan 01:30 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * No, "vol de mort" means "flight from death." It refers to his attempts to escape the holds of death and achieve immortality (alluded to throughout the series but not solidified until #6).  The part that confuses people is that "vol" can mean both "flight" and "theft," though Rowling has confirmed (and it's the most logical answer) that she meant for it to mean "flight." Kakashi-sensei 23:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Czech anagram is actually in Spanish! It should be "Já" not "Soy"... -- Arwel 19:48 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't know who of you wrote this article, but in the German site, it doesn't exist. Would it be possible if I could take out pieces out of it and translate it for the germans? Thanks User:Jaanalohff

On the bottom of every page, it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." So that means you can redistribute this material, and redisributing includes translating and putting on another part of a site. User:bobguy7


 * Sort of. You have to link back to the orignal site and otherwise follow the terms of the GFDL. --Maru (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

WTF, merge with Crazy Frog? Someone's joking... Shadikka 17:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The Horcruxes
One thing I never understood about the number of horcruxes was this: If Voldemort had six and lost two (The diary and the ring), he should have four left, as stated in the book. However, he lost a horcrux when he failed to kill Harry, right? Wouldn't that leave him in three pieces?
 * Dumbledore theorized that the sixth Horcrux was created later with the murder of Frank Bryce, and that it was Nagini. Sinistro 09:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe he wanted to split his soul in seven pieces. Therefore there are 6 horcruxes each of which has a part of his soul. The 7th part would be his own life. When he died he did not lose a horcrux but his real life.


 * He had five Horcruxes when he went to kill Harry. He wanted to create a Horcrux with the death of Harry, but the protection of Lily Potter didn't let him. So, he has 5 Horcruxes, wants to create one more with Harry's death but he's not able, however, a Horcrux was somehow created, and that Horcrux is himself: Voldemort. There are five Horcurxes, and another one, who is himself. The last Horcrux was created with the death of Frank Bryce, in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and the Horcrux is Nagini. So there are seven Horcruxes:
 * The diary, the ring, something from Ravenclaw, Slytherin's locket, Hufflepuff's cup, Nagini, and himself, Voldemort.
 * Since two of the Horcruxes have been destroyed (The diary and the ring), five Horcruxes remain, however, since Voldemort is an Horcrux himself, four Horcruxes have to be destroyed before killing Lord Voldemort. Wanna Know My Name? Later 14:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the soul left in him have died too when he died though? So only the locket, cup nagini and something from Ravenclaw (or Gryffindor), would be remaining. 86.142.238.221 13:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the 'spirit' we see in Book One *is* the seventh piece of the soul: it didn't pass on because it was linked to the remaining five/six horcruxes. Had Dumbledore chosen to actually destroy all the Horcruxes before Voldemort-Redux, Voldemort would therefore probably have been whirled off with those soul fragments, since there was nothing to anchor him to this plane of existence. Alas...it is our choices, rather than our abilities, which define us... Michaelsanders 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Voldemort's House
Is it ever explicitly stated that Riddle was in Slytherin? I know it seems logical, but I don't remember them saying it outright. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:30, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Dumbledore confirms in HBP that Riddle was in Slytherin. 216.108.172.249 04:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hagrid said Voldemort was in Slytherin, and since Riddle is Voldemort, than Riddle was in Slytherin.


 * Which book does Hagrid say that in? Are you refering to the line that "there never was a bad wizard who wasn't in Slytherin"?  Because, that line has proven itself to be hyperbole (Peter Pettigrew, etc.) - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 04:41, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just after that line about Slytherin and Dark Wizards, Harry asks Hagrid "You-Know-Who was one? [Slytherin]" and Hagrid answers "Years n' years ago". Sinistro 07:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-

Much about the nature of Voldemort was revealed in The Half-Blood Prince. Should we wait for the book to settle into existence before updating the article appropriately?


 * That's what I was wondering, I just finished the book, and I'm bursting to write about it.
 * Why not write in the HPB info and just use a spoiler warning? How about ? WhyBeNormal 07:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Table
Why is style="white-space:nowrap;" used in the name table?

Furthermore the notes should be put underneath the entry they elaborate on in order to fix the table on the screen. - RoyBoy 800 15:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Death
The thing that Voldemort fears most is death. HBP gave me the impression that this is because his mother died while giving birth to him. His remark about her obviously not being a witch because she died in childbirth shows that he sees death as something unnecessary. Does anybody else think this, and if so, should it be included in the article? Benji man 21:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * JKR said why his worst fear is death in the MuggleNet/Leaky Cauldron interview. "..He thinks that it's a shameful human weakness..." (from part 2). I think it would be a good idea to include infomation about his worst fear with the infomation about the steps he took to become immortal (the Horcruxes). --WhyBeNormal 07:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed it hasn't been included before. After all, "vol de mort" means "flight from death." Also, the entire series has done nothing but allude to his desire to achieve immortality. It was only in book 6 that Rowling solidified the claim. Kakashi-sensei 23:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Making a horcrux
It appears that Tom Riddle is a separate article, primarily on the theory that this is preferable to a redirect, which would effectively disclose Riddle's identity without warning to someone who has not finished reading Chamber of Secrets. At the same time, that article basically has no content and this one is beginning to get bulky. May I suggest that some of the material here should be moved there, and only summarized more briefly here?


 * A sensible way to do this is based on his own use of the names; the period in which he was known as Tom Riddle should be discussed primarily at that location, and the period in which he was known as Lord Voldemort should stay here. --Michael Snow 21:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think one could safely assume that a person checking wiki for information is not worried about spoilers. It's wiki's duty to have the information available as effectively and clearly as possible. Besides, anyone reading the Voldemort article could just as easily discover the true identity of Tom Riddle, without looking for it. Tom riddle should therefore be a redirect in my opinion.

The Dark Years
Wouldnt that be "the non-dark years" or "the light years" because Voldemort wasn't around? Supersaiyanplough|(talk) 03:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It was the Dark Years as far as Voldemort was concerned! He was as powerless as possible, while staying just alive enough to know it and suffer. That should have been pretty unpleasant. Sinistro 08:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that we could come up with a better name for this section than "The Dark Years"? I don't recall it ever being refered to as such in canon nor is it common in the online fandom. It's a bit foggy as Supersaiyanplough said. Dark for whom? Voldemort? Certainly not Britain. I've always heard him refered to as "Vapormort" perhaps the "Vapormort Years", "Hiding and Exile", "Albania", "Disembodiment", "Disembodiment and Possession", or even simpler, "Post Halloween 1981- the summer of 1994". Maybe not any of these but surely something better and more clear than the dark years? TonyJoe
 * I changed it to "The Years of Exile". I think it's as close to the previous heading as possible but a lot clearer. How does it look? Sinistro 23:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that the afore-proposed "Disembodiment and Possession" would be inherently more suitable as it is clear and precise. 195.93.21.6 11:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Dark Lord
THe Dark Lord will always prevail... Draco Malfoy 18:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing.

Depends whether Dumbledore's really dead, doesn't it. Furthermore, the prophecy alludes to the fact that one is destined to kill the other, specifically "neither can live while the other survives." Kordos 19:41, December 2nd 2005.

Referring to Voldemort as "Voldemort"
The introduction mentions that most refer to Voldemort as "He who must not be named." Would it be worth while to add explicit information about who doesn't? As far as I can tell, it's Dumbledore and Harry in books 1-5 and add Hermione and Ginny in book 6. Actually, the latter two are quite jarring as there is no explaination by the characters or the narrator. It's quite possible that I'm not paying close attention to the books, too. --1pezguy 03:18, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the page for Ginny, but not for Hermoine or Dumbledore on a not so careful reading. --1pezguy 03:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Quirrel also refers to him as Voldemort in book 1 19:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)~

Hagrid also refers to him as Voldemort in the first book (albeit reluctantly) --Dan 13:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert and the inherent evil of Lord Voldemort
I just reverted an edit. I forgot to give an explanation so i'll do it here. The edit said:


 * One way of properly explaining why Voldemort is inherently (and purely) evil is the manner in which he was conceived. Through flashbacks in "The Half-Blood Prince" it becomes known that Tom Riddle was conceived in a relationship that did not know any form of true love. Voldemort's magical mother had seduced the handsome and wealthy muggle Tom Riddle with a love potion, which kept him under a spell and induced him to marry her. It was only after Voldemort's mother removed the spell from his father that he left her. Riddle left Voldemort's mother whilst still pregnant. Dumbledore had stated on numerous occasions (notably in "The Philosopher's Stone") that Voldemort was incable of expressing or enduring the emotion of love, which turned the orphan Tom Riddle into the twisted visage of Lord Voldemort. Voldemort's inherently evil soul is quite possibly due to the fact that he was conceived sans any form of human love.

I dont think that being born of a loveless marriage makes Voldemort incapable of love. That would go against the major theme of choice making us who we are. According to this, Voldemort's fate was predetermined. I dont think the above is accurate.TonyJoe 00:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Choice plays a pivotal role in Harry Potter morals. Doidimais Brasil 03:54, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed as well. I don't think it's the fact that Merope Gaunt basically raped tom Riddle sr, but rather that his father abandoned him, which (by operant conditioning) has led him to detest the institution of marriage and love. 134.192.86.90


 * Also agreed. Voldemort is a unique and powerful character, but the circumstances of his conception and birth, while not the norm, must be fairly common. Surely there are many other half-blood children who are not scarred by loveless beginnings to the point that they become the most powerful Dark wizard ever. Fsotrain09 04:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The engendering of a moral monster is one of life's great mysteries. But there's one thing psychologists and theologians agree on: In almost every case, monsters are MADE, not conceived." (Julian May, 'Diamond Mask'). Incidentally, this and another quote are in relation to a boy who became a psychopath partially as a result of child abuse: "It affects different victims in different ways. Many of them survive to lead almost ordinary lives. Some are left emotional cripples until therapy helps them drain away the old poison. A few are so wounded that their only release is in wounding others. The wickedness isn't completely involuntary, however...Always, somewhere along the line, the nascent monster chooses to do what he or she knows is evil. Genuine insanity and lack of culpability may follow, but in the beginning there is always that fatal 'yes'." Sound like anyone we know? Michaelsanders 20:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy
if voldemort is Tom Riddle... and Tom Riddle is the son of a which mother and muggle father, then is it not hipocritical for voldemort to hate half-bloods or mudbloods even?? being one himself i mean. as as for his ancestor, salzar slitherin, also one who hates those who are not pure bloods... wouldnt he be ashamed to know that one of his decendants was a muggle lover?? User:70.71.11.42
 * First of all, it has already been adressed in the books that he is disgusted with the fact that his father was a muggle and he refused to keep his father's name and even murdered him and his parents. Second of all, if you are going to ask a question that advertizes your ignorance, you could at least use proper grammar to make it seem just a little bit serious. User:67.149.161.230
 * Was it not possible to answer the question with a simple "yes Voldemort displays a certain hypocrisy not uncommon to most pure blood supremacists etc."? TonyJoe 17:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is supposed to also bring to mind Hitler as well, who was despite all he did, he was not German. (Jamandell (d69) 19:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC))

hitler was also jewish. Kordos
 * As I recall, Hitler's ancestry is debated by historians. Some belief that one of his parents (or possibly grandparents) was Jewish, but it isn't certain.  In any case, Hitler himself was not Jewish, even if he was Hebrew.12.17.189.77 15:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Why are we using a "fan" made image? There are real images of Voldemort we can use, whether they be from Sorceror's Stone or what. --Maru (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How about this, from the GOF trailer? --Nandhp 01:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Voldemort-gof-trailer.png]]


 * Well, I'd expect it would have to be cropped first, but yeah, sure. --Maru (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's the same person. Just delete this article, Voldemort already talks about Tom Marvalo Riddle. The Voldemort page is long enough anyway, it'll just have to be broken up into multiple articles anyway.

I'm just really glad they put an image of the Ralph Fiennes voldemort at the top of the article. The one shown above is of him in his weakened "baby-like" state. User: kordos


 * well, god, i was disappointed by the portray of voldemort in the movie. he wasn't remotely frightening, not even to my five-year old cousin. I don't think the portrayal in the movie was very accurate. 134.192.86.90

Category:Fictional psychopaths
Why is Lord Voldemort in this category? What makes him a psychopath? He may be evil, but is he really psychopathic? -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  18:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Possibly because he is manipulative, amoral, and kills gleefully, characteristics of sociopaths? --Maru (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Even more importantly, Dumbledore emphasized in "Half-Blood Prince" that Tom Riddle was from a very young age utterly devoid of empathy or remorse. --Funkmistress 06:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It is possible that medically, he might be a psychopath. He's the general mold of a serial killer: do something terrible, deny that what he did was wrong, and take pleasure in it.

Category:Image
Lets keep the image please. There is no need for a fan made image. 63.207.248.188 22:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Another Image, Perhaps?
Found this one awhile back:



A friend who has seen the movie says this is Voldemort, but now I'm confused cuz there's a different picture up on the Voldemort article. Someone please verify and leave a message on my Talk page.

--SigmaX54 03:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * that's just some crazy, skinless kinda thing. someone just made this digitally and superimposed it inot a picture of harry. that one at the top of the article is the real one. -kordos


 * Agreed with above. Still interesting, though... that's more what I thought he'd look like. guess it was a little too "resident-evil"ish for the movie.

Killing all Muggles
I removed the claim that Voldemort wants to kill all Muggles from the opening paragraph. While he clearly enjoys killing Muggles, never has it been stated that he plans to kill all of them (a task that, given the huge number of Muggles compared to wizards, could be quite impossible). 80.235.61.206 19:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously a photo-manipulation, as it is confirmed that Voldemort, nor Harry, look anything like this in the movie Italic textHarry Potter and the Goblet of FireItalic text. In fact, on this very website there is a picture of Voldemort in his true form in the movies' perception.

Am I missing something?
When I moved from one place to another, I lost a number of DVDs; one of them being Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets. RATS! My question is:

"I AM LORD VOLDEMORT" is supposed to be an anagram of "TOM RIDDLE"         but the letters A-M-L-O-R-V-O are left.

Please tell me what I have forgotten.


 * I think you might have forgotten that this is an encyclopaedia. Try turning the page. ;) Peeper 16:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC).

edit: Voldemort's full name is: Tom Marvolo Riddle.

Theory about Voldemort
Voldemort's mother Merope died in childbirth which means that indirectly Voldemort murdered his mother and if you murder someone it splits your soul apart so maybe after his mother died his soul got split when he was just a baby and it was said at the orphanage that he was a very quiet and unusual baby but I could be wrong alot of women die in childbirth and their babies turn out just fine

i think it has to be a direct murder, since with an indirect murder, the murderer did not make a conscious descision to kill him/her. Just a thought. Kordos


 * 1. There is a huge difference between consiously committing murder, and a mother dying in childbirth.  It is an even longer stretch to suppose a birthing child could have the will to kill it's mother.


 * 2. If you are getting to a Horcrux creation issue at his mother's death - the creation of a Horcrux is an intentionally evil act, and must be a fairly complicated magical task, and certainly cannot be an inadvertent consequence of a death - whether accidental or murderously intentional. T-dot 23:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Moaning Myrtle killed by Voldemort?
As far as I remeber she is killed by the Basilisk and not by Voldemort. I haven't got the books myself. Can somebody please check that and change it if I am right.


 * She was, but the basilisk had been unleashed and was under the control of Voldemort, so you could make an argument she was killed by both. --Maru (talk) Contribs 16:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The entry about Moaning Myrtle says she was killed by the basilisk, so it should at least be stringend in both entries. Voldemort did not control the basilisk, did he? I think it should be change in this entry, even taken out alltogehter because it is not directly one of voldemorts deeds. 194.127.8.20 12:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if I put a hungry lion in yout bedroom, then locked the door after you went in, I think that might be considered murder (assuming the lion killed you). So, yes, it is not the instrument but the person arranging events who is the murderer. I recall that he did control the basilisk on acount of being able to speak to it, and release it at will. He later sets it loose again on Harry. In context, it, might still be correct to say she was killed by the basilisk, but also murdered by VoldemortSandpiper 17:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Or - if some guy in the neighborhood sics his pit bull on a young child passing by his yard and she dies- you can bet he'll get charged with her murder. T-dot 23:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, actually, Voldemort did control the basilisk. When Myrtle was killed, the first Horcrux was created: the diary. Wanna Know My Name? Later 14:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Most powerful wizard alive?
"With the possible exception of Albus Dumbledore, Voldemort is the most powerful wizard alive." Being as dumbledore is dead... 69.22.42.35 08:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Booya, got that right. -- LV (Dark Mark)  16:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Lord Voldemort's gleefulness notwithstanding, I have reworded that sentence to take out the reference to Dumbledore, since Dumbledore is dead. H e rmione1980 16:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * no one knows whether dumbledore is dead or not. although a lot of obvious evidence points that way, there are many more subtle clues to the contrary. although this may be dismissed by many as wishful thinking, we will see what happens in book 7. for a more detailed account, visit this excellent site: http://www.dumbledoreisnotdead.com


 * This sentence should stay as is, since Dumbledore is quite alive during six out of the seven books.

very interesting stuff there. -kordos

Humour
Why is it that nobody noticed Voldemort's (black) humour ? The guy is really funny, and not by accident, but on purpose. The fun is for himself, OK, but there is fun, especially in The Goblet of Fire. In fact, I am almost thinking that he is able to joke about himself. When he says for example to Wormtail that maybe he is planning to abandon him, that he would not survive without his clumsy care... he seems somehow to enjoy it. --Flo

I have noticed this on many occasions throughout the books, mostly from Goblet of Fire onwards, which is one of the reasons Voldemort remains one of my top 3 arch-villains. Ever. He insults people and holds most everyone in complete contempt, but he is still able to bring this across in a way that is very funny, if you step back and detatch yourself from rooting for Harry (or indeed Voldemort, as I do). He is able to poke fun at himself, if you will, and that shows a very extraordinary side of his personality that you would not expect to exist. This comes across specifically in the graveyard sequence in Goblet, possibly becasue of his rapture and joy at having a body again...well, one that does not require care from Wormtail, anyway. -Kordos


 * I root for Lord Voldemort too. Just thought I'd tell ya. -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * yeah, i figured. Kordos &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.209.171.27 (talk • contribs).

Love
Everyone says Voldemort is "incapable of love", included JKR. I totally disagree. He loves power, he loves being evil. And maybe this is not as different from loving people as one can think. The object changes, but does the feeling change ? I am not so sure. And if it changes, where does it change ? Loving : your wife (people)... your dog (animal)... your car (object)... running (activity)... liberty (concept). Apparently, Voldemort is loving concepts, activities and objects, not people nor animal, but some well-known philosophers were like that. People say "they were intellectuals", they don't say "they were incapable of love". And today, many people love only animals. Loving people, animals, objects etc is known to be a projective mechanism, very different from unconditional love, which is non-projective (the only character being capable of such love in HP being Dumbledore). As some people say, ordinary love is business, nothing else. We are waiting for something in exchange. And what are we waiting for ? The feeling of being in love (everyone knows how it feels). Voldemort is in love with power. Not different from anyone. Did you never dream, during the night, that you were an all-powerful wizard, that you could do anything in your dream ? How did it feel ? -- Flo
 * That's more of a philisophical debate than anything. However, I do not think that Voldemort loves power, he simply desires it.  Likewise, I don't think it's possible to love an object or an activity.  But like I said, that sort of debate is really philisophical more than canonical.

Nose
I do have one quick question about the makeup on Ralph Fiennes. His wicked kool snake nose was added digitally, wasn't it? Coz I have an argument with a friend who says that they just compressed his nose down with strong latex. Does anyone have any info to the contrary? -Kordos

No, I have read an interview with Ralph Fiennes and he discribed his terrifying nose as being done with make up and lighting techniques

ah, thanks so much. i was getting desperate. -Kordos


 * Watching the special features on the GoF DVD, the nose and face were mostly digital. They had dots on Finnes' face, so that the computer artists could track movements and alter his appearance Duke Starhopper 06:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter featured article drive
I'm trying to get the Featured Article Drive going again on the HP Wikiproject. It looks like this article might be a good one to work on. Check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Harry_Potter/Improvement, I'd appreciate your input! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

npov?
Why is npov on this article? I don't see a problem with it. H e rmione1980 01:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Republicans for Voldemort?
Should this be mentioned in the article? The bumper sticker is here. --Blue387 18:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's funny, I didn't realise I was running for something. -- LV (Dark Mark)  18:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looks like a humour piece (maybe started by Democrats?). I don't think it's notable enough to be included here. --Deathphoenix 12:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I dunno. I was sent that link a number of times, and I actually saw it around more than twice. --Maru (talk) Contribs 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I am fairly into American politics and Lord Voldemort, and I had never heard of this. Even if I had, would it be encyclopedic? Isn't it just one comic strip and some 8bit merchandising? -- LV (Dark Mark)  18:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

removed "Pronunciation" section
Reason i removed it is because the information relates similarly to the introduction, because it takes a factual look on his name, as does the introduction paragraph, the rest takes an in-the-harry-potter-world look at it. Still, it's relevant to be at the start of the article, particularly for those of us who have a look on our mobiles :-) Spum 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On a related point, couldn't "Voldemort" be more Latin than French? And if so, wouldn't it mean not "flight of death" but "will/choice of death"? Vol as in voluntary. Very appropriate, if valid. --Christofurio 00:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That would make sense, but as JKR is a French Major, it's more likely to be French than Latin.12.17.189.77 15:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Coming along nicely!
Hey, i've been moving things around, and rewriting the article, and it's coming along great guns. Just like to thank everyone who has contributed to the article! Mr Spum 01:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed
Voldemort is widely considered one of the most forceful and powerful villain figures in modern children's literature.

Where is this documented? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Common knowledge??? :-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  14:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, that guideline is pretty much what I meant :-p Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge
It's been suggested on the Tom Riddle, Lord Voldemort, and the WikiProject Harry Potter page that the the Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort pages be merged and one be made a soft redirect.Sounds like a good idea but no one ever did anything about it so... here I am. Objections? TonyJoe 00:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Spoiler problems. If someone does research on Tom Riddle and then gets redirected to Voldemort, and they're reading, say, the second book, they'll be all "AWWH THE BOOK IS RUINED." See Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader for an example of two articles of the same character. MessedRocker 21:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tom Riddle and Voldemort are two different people. Tom was just a kid at an orphanage until he found out that he is a wizard and he became obsessed with his new-found power. A this point he becomes Voldemort much like Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader. User:67.149.161.230
 * Anakin was a good guy who became a bad guy. Voldemort was a bad kid from a bad family who grew up to be an even bigger bad guy. Started terrorising before 10, murder in his teens, mass murder when he got going.Sandpiper 12:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They are not Two seperate people, not even Tom in the CoS thinks so (Voldemort is my past present and future). As for spoilers... I've never seen Star Wars or read the books or comic books, or seen the t.v. shows and specials, yet I know that Anakin and Vader are the same person. In the same way that Anakin and Vader are badly kept secrets so are Riddle and Voldemort. I dont think that most people at this stage of the game will be shocked, nor will we be spoiling CoS for the vast majority of people who would read a combined article. And in any event isnt it possible to make a redirect page with a spoiler warning and a link to the main article, the same way that "The Half-Blood Prince" and Severus Snape articles have? Thus, merger and spoiler prevention.TonyJoe 16:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There´s no point in having two articles. Anakin Skywalker is a one-line article which merely redirects to Darth Vader. Articles should most certainly be merged. Doidimais Brasil 00:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I also object to the merger. User:Messedrocker and User:67.149.161.230 make valid arguments. The Tom Riddle article could focus on the person's life before becoming Lord Voldemort, while the Lord Voldemort article focuses on the person's life after giving up the identity of Tom Riddle. This prevents forcing spoilers on people without even a spoiler warning. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 08:36, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * But riddle started using the name Voldemort while at school. Where to make the division?Sandpiper
 * Note: User:Zakharov also objects to this proposed merger on Talk:Tom Riddle. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 08:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Tom Riddle Article already spoils Tom becoming voldemort so unless its taken out the spoiler is already there
 * Borrowing from the original discussion, perhaps the litmus test should be whether the setup and the payoff occur in the same book. That is to say, the character known as Tom Riddle is introduced in "Chamber of Secrets," but it is revealed later in the same book that he is Lord Voldemort. Similarly, the character knows as The Half-Blood Prince is introduced in the book of the same name, but it is revealed later in the same book that he is Severus Snape. On the other hand, Scabbers is introduced in "Philosopher's Stone" but it isn't revealed that he is Peter Pettigrew until "Prisoner of Azkaban." I would argue therefore that Riddle/Voldemort and HBP/Snape should be merged, but Scabbers/Pettigrew should be separate. --Dmleach 14:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This seems reasonable. Merging can only be a spoiler for a very small segment of the reading population- those in Chamber of Secrets (1/7 of the extant series), and what is more, only those who have read up to Riddle revealing himself to Potter, but have yet to reach the confrontation in the Chamber, which is perhaps a fourth of the book. So even assuming a random distribution (unlikely) only for 1/28 of the Potter-reading population could a merge be a spoiler. And I would contend even then it is not a major spoiler, as with Pettigrew. So do the non-spoiler benefits of not merging outweigh the benefits of merging? I do not think so. --Maru (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I object to the merging. I support the spoiler reason, but I also want to point out that while Tom Riddle himself might have regarded himself as the same person as Lord Voldemort, Dobby, for example, seemed to think otherwise. --Spug 02:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would object to the merging, but the picture of Tom in the Voldemort article would defeat the purpose unless first removed. I agree with Spug and I cannot help but think Dumbledore might also have disagreed with this perception of Tom and Voldemort being the same person.  However, I think this decision is only a minor detail.  People will stumble upon it if they are careless in their intake of information.  Perhaps we just need to also post a reminder for users, just as Dumbledore had cautioned Harry, that "curiosity is not a sin... but we should exercise caution with our curiosity, yes indeed." --David.Filkins 03:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been pointed out on the project page that this and the tom riddle article already contain the same information, except that this contains additional material. The Riddle page anyway refers readers here for more information. I don't feel that much is to be gained by having a separate page for tom. Logically, the only people interested in it would be ones who have already started reading book 2, and by the end of it they know the secret anyway. If they want to look up characters in the middle of reading a book then they are as daft as a brush and deserve to find out what they are seeking. So I would favour disposing of Tom and having done. At the moment people are just having to maintain two essentially identicle articles. Sandpiper 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Severus Snape and the prophecy
I note someone inserted a line that snape was working for Voldemort when he told him the prophecy. Well, I'm not convinced we can say that. Dumbledore stated that Snape heard half the prophecy, but was then ejected from the building. Sybil trelawney said that he burst in just after she made the prophecy, though in fact she was not aware of making it, only of feeling faint. She had no reason to lie when saying this, but either she or Dumbledore did not tell the story accurately. If Dumbledore's story was true, there is no way she would even have known that snape was present. The implication is that events did not happen the way Dumbledore claimed when speaking to Harry, with the further implication that Snape may have deliberately witheld half the prophecy from Voldemort. Which means he was not working for him at the time.


 * Congratulations, you've found one more of the many clues that lead to the possibility that Snape is a good guy, and Dumbledore is alive. Wanna Know My Name? Later 15:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Newish edit by 65.97.17.55 here. I changed the image back to the proper one. -  nathanrdotcom   (Talk • Contribs)  03:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've sent a test1 to 65.97.17.55 (talk • contribs • [ page moves] • block user • [ block log]) . --Deathphoenix 04:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Luke, I am your father!
I do think that LV is actually the father of HP, no matter how much adjustments it will require to the story in the last volume. You will all see that in awe!


 * That's not even worth considering. Rowling clearly stated in an interview that whoever thought that was "watching too much star wars". don't post unnecessary information.

Also, noone did notice LV similarities to Hitler? It is claimed AH was very paranoid throughout his life about himself being partially jew and this was his reason for the intense persecution of the jewry. 195.70.32.136 12:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we will. However, if you want more people to read (and respond to) your speculation, you should try posting your theories to a fan forum. You will get more responses there. Wikipedia is NOT a fan forum. --Deathphoenix 13:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe he was referring to me, the editor? Although he could have just asked me on my talk page. ;-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

GA
Don't know who failed it but they didn't give a reason and I think it meets the standards. savidan(talk) (e@) 11:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Only just!
Probably right that it's GA, but only just :-) There's a lot of things here that really need referencing, e.g. "Characters seem less uncomfortable hearing Voldemort's name in the films than in the books." Is the only reference used other than the books a Time magazine article? Does that mean that anything in this article which is not a simple recounting of events (i.e. any piece of character analysis, and any discussion about the creative process behind the character, as well as anything here about the film) comes from that source? That would suggest it's under-referenced at the moment. Also, you need to be aware of WP:FICT if you are writing about fiction. Most of the article seems to be written about the HP Universe - there is an adage in Wikipedia that we should take care to "describe this Universe"! As such, it doesn't really meet the standards laid out at WP:FICT. What really should make this an encylopedic article would be more consideration of character analysis and development, and the authorial process. Maybe even something from the actor about how he decided to play LV, and why - and all of this would need to be sourced, whether from interviews, reviews or (and there is plenty around) academic or literary criticism of the Harry Potter canon.

Some ideas that could help:
 * Try to write from a point of view outside the perspective of the fictional universe.
 * Can you include details about the process of authorship? How did JKR get the ideas behind this character? What did she base him on? How original is the idea? Did she base him on another character, or has she made no comment about this?
 * What has the influence of LV been outside his particular fictional realm? Have any other writers professed to "adapting" ideas like this for their books, TV shows, or films? What about merchandising, a very economically valuable and materially significant aspect of LV's incursion into reality!
 * What has critical response been to the character? Are there reviewers who think he is too scary for children? Not scary enough? How big do critics find the difference between LV in the book and the films? Does LV have a fan base of his own?

To help the writers of this article along, here are 3 really useful links:
 * User:Uncle G/Describe this universe (Gives the right philosophy for writing about fiction in WP: Describe this universe! Keep that at the centre of all your writing on this topic and you'll be fine.)
 * Guide to writing better articles (pretty much the official guide on what is required of articles about fiction. Helpful but a bit dry!)
 * User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction (Funny and useful! A must-read for anyone writing about fiction on Wikipedia... I guarantee you will find it helpful.)

There is plenty of good work in this article, but at the moment it reads too much like a selective plot sample, and I'd rank it only as a marginal/dodgy GA. If it can be fleshed out, made a bit more three-dimensional, critical and classically "encylopedic", and could be given a wider variety of references - interviews, critical reviews, newspaper and magazine articles, even fansites (for the purpose of ascertaining what fans' reactions to LV are, not for verifying facts about LV himself!) - then I think it would have a great chance at FAC! TheGrappler 00:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree. The points made also apply to most Harry Potter articles. SmokeyJoe 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Try Again for Feature Article?
Does anybody else here think that this article could become a featured article now? --Aeon 04:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a chance. They'll do you over on real-world significance and references, and they don't really like the in situ approach of treating a fictional character as real. --maru  (talk)  contribs 21:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * to bad.....oh well. Aeon 02:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think with a bit more, such as citing more sources and making the article more approachable for non-HP readers, this could definitely have a chance for a FA. But that's just my two knuts. --Fbv65 e del (discuss 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)